3.0 Weapon Sizing [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.0 Weapon Sizing [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Mindolin
08-01-07, 04:37 PM Okay, I was just wondering how good or bad of an idea it would be to reimplement the 3.0 weapon sizing rules.
tarkin
08-01-07, 06:11 PM 3.0 sizing is basically very similar to 3.5

you have some slight advantages to the players in that they don't have to worry about the difference between their great sword and an Ogre's long sword.

Honestly, I think they SHOULD have an easier time using their own Great Sword than an Ogre's long sword - the hilt should be twice as big, and therefore not comfortable.

But all new 3.5 stuff is using 3.5 terms. So you will be adding a LOT of confusion, when discussing treasure they find.

I would not consider it worth it to revert to the older version.
Nom
08-01-07, 06:39 PM 3.5 weapon sizing has another advantage: you define a weapon type for a medium creature, and it immediately scales to every other creature. If you use 3.0 sizing, you have to duplicate the weapons at each category.

For example, the rapier is a d6 18-20/x2 slashing weapon for medium creatures. One size category down is the kukri, which is identical except for the die shift (d4). Now, what happens when a Small creature wants to do the equivalent of rapier/kukri? Well, we have the kukri, but we need to invent an off-hand weapon that is to the kukri as the kukri is to the rapier.

So let's call it a "Tiny Kukri". But at that point, isn't it easier to say that a kukri is a light weapon dealing d4 18-20/x3 piercing and then just scale it based on creature size (adding a size qualifier and adjusting damage accordingly)?

The 3.5 weapon sizing rules are a good example of templating. The only real thing to take issue with is the -2 off-size penalty, but opinion will differ on whether you consider that "realistic" or "unnecessary".
Frugal
08-02-07, 01:33 PM Personally, I find they make my brain hurt. About the only advantage I can see is it will allow you to fully integrate the fullblade into your game and not suffer a brain aneurysm as you try to figure out how that abomination should work with 3.5 weapons sizes.

I know I've heard some people who like to play halflings complain about 3.5 weapon sizes but that was mainly because the DM was super-stingy on giving out any weapons for small creatures.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mindolin 08-01-07, 04:37 PM	Okay, I was just wondering how good or bad of an idea it would be to reimplement the 3.0 weapon sizing rules.
tarkin 08-01-07, 06:11 PM	3.0 sizing is basically very similar to 3.5 you have some slight advantages to the players in that they don't have to worry about the difference between their great sword and an Ogre's long sword. Honestly, I think they SHOULD have an easier time using their own Great Sword than an Ogre's long sword - the hilt should be twice as big, and therefore not comfortable. But all new 3.5 stuff is using 3.5 terms. So you will be adding a LOT of confusion, when discussing treasure they find. I would not consider it worth it to revert to the older version.
Nom 08-01-07, 06:39 PM	3.5 weapon sizing has another advantage: you define a weapon type for a medium creature, and it immediately scales to every other creature. If you use 3.0 sizing, you have to duplicate the weapons at each category. For example, the rapier is a d6 18-20/x2 slashing weapon for medium creatures. One size category down is the kukri, which is identical except for the die shift (d4). Now, what happens when a Small creature wants to do the equivalent of rapier/kukri? Well, we have the kukri, but we need to invent an off-hand weapon that is to the kukri as the kukri is to the rapier. So let's call it a "Tiny Kukri". But at that point, isn't it easier to say that a kukri is a light weapon dealing d4 18-20/x3 piercing and then just scale it based on creature size (adding a size qualifier and adjusting damage accordingly)? The 3.5 weapon sizing rules are a good example of templating. The only real thing to take issue with is the -2 off-size penalty, but opinion will differ on whether you consider that "realistic" or "unnecessary".
Frugal 08-02-07, 01:33 PM	Personally, I find they make my brain hurt. About the only advantage I can see is it will allow you to fully integrate the fullblade into your game and not suffer a brain aneurysm as you try to figure out how that abomination should work with 3.5 weapons sizes. I know I've heard some people who like to play halflings complain about 3.5 weapon sizes but that was mainly because the DM was super-stingy on giving out any weapons for small creatures.